10 ms·
About the Reuters article
- kefs 13y agoFTA: For those who say that they wish there was more attention paid to the substance of the NSA stories than Snowden: here is the list of the NSA revelations we've published over the last month. Feel free to focus on them any time. http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/07/nsa-revelations-over-last-month.html http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/07/nsa-revelations-ov...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ics 13y agoDoes anyone have a mirror of this article? I can see the Reuters one fine but this isn't loading at all for me.
- greenyoda 13y agohttp://pastebin.com/WPBdUy36 http://pastebin.com/WPBdUy36
- mtgx 13y agoI thought Reuters had an "angle" almost immediately, since I saw the words fugitive and spy next to Snowden's name in the summary at the top.
- tzs 13y agoThey said former spy contractor, which is accurate. Fugitive is accurate. So, how exactly do you infer an angle from this?
- mikemoka 13y ago"the tactic of the US government has been to attack and demonize whistleblowers as a means of distracting attention from their own exposed wrongdoing and destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message. That attempt will undoubtedly be made here." looking back at all the articles recently published on HN about it, this has undoubtedly happened here as well in a sense. My feeling is that people are already starting to somehow forget about the revelations by replacing them in their mind with the engaging story of a whistleblower on the run.
- reneherse 13y agoSlightly off topic: The article mentions a "dead man's switch" set up by Snowden prior to making his disclosures. If he is assassinated, apparently all the documents will be publicly released. Greenwald also mentioned that the totality of what Snowden controls is "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." Let's assume that's not an entirely hyperbolic statement. From the point of view of the Obama Administration, the real threat is not Snowden's/Greenwald's principled (even patriotic) drip of information, but that an enemy of the US might kill Snowden, and stage it to look like a US op, thus tripping the dead man's switch. Snowden has, on his own, made himself a prime target for any sufficiently ambitious US antagonist. And so the US wants Snowden back not only to prosecute him, but also to "protect" him. (Nothing like four years of solitary to keep you safe, comrade.) Until and unless he is granted a pardon or some other form of immunity from prosecution, it seems that Snowden's best interest is to stay in the strongest and most secure country he can find. A country with a highly developed security apparatus (to protect him from hostile agents), one that is adversarial to America (to disallow his rendition or extradition), but not openly antagonistic (to want to kill him to harm the US). And that is exactly the country where he finds himself right now. Obama and Putin have quite the chess match coming up. God bless the man whose life is in their hands. [Edited for clarity]
- decryptthis_NSA 13y agodon't think it's hyperbole. Snowden planned this for a while and looks like he had access to and knew where to find everything. USA probably spends $100+ Billion in intel and knowing what foreign leaders, generals and business leaders say and write can be more powerful than a few aircraft carriers. Of course then there is the trust issue, many world leaders will be pissed to learn that their "friend" has been reading their emails and monitoring their phone calls, even private ones.
- mikemoka 13y agosolitary confinement could trigger it as well probably, it depends on how things have been set up. Obama should have handled this in a totally different way, he should have treated him as a partner for having shed light upon a corrupted practice of the NSA, and should have asked the people heading the NSA to resign. This would have been a checkmate against any other US antagonist in my opinion, but I admit that is definitely too easy to judge things you don't know in every aspect from the comfort of your own home.
- oleganza 13y agoEvery mainstream newspaper, tv and radio channel has to have a state-issued license to operate. This means that state can always find a reason to dismiss the license and make business shut down. This fact creates a great bias towards discussing something safer in the eye of the state. Talking about Snowden character is so much safer than speaking openly about how NSA spies on everyone by forcing companies to give them access to communication channels and hardware and then forces them to lie to their customers about privacy. "Free speech" exists only when there is no license to get and no armed SWAT team that will come if you don't have one.
- brown9-2 13y agoA license to operate a newspaper? This sounds far fetched as there are no limited resources like airwaves being occupied.
- nitrogen 13y agoThere are business licenses, code inspections, and changing zoning requirements. Not quite the same as a spectrum license, but there are still many ways for a government to exert pressure on a newspaper.
- maxerickson 13y agoSurely there is some crank website documenting all the newspapers that have been driven out of business by federal pressure. The major newspapers play silly access games, but just throwing out speculation that they are getting pressured is pointless.
- nitrogen 13y agoRight, I'm not playing conspiracy theory or saying there is coercion, just responding to the comment that newspapers don't require any licensing. What with the IRS targeting political groups, you can't be too careful these days ;-).
- weinzierl 13y agothen by bullying small countries out of letting him land for re-fueling. As far as I know Cuba was the country were a stop for re-fueling was planned on the way to South America. I have read about pressure on Ecuador, but not Cuba. Does that sentence mean that Greenwald (and probably Snowden and Wikileaks) have information that a stop in Cuba is not save?
- acqq 13y agoa stop in Cuba is not safe http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/25/why-cuba-might-not-be-safe-for-snowden/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/25... In order to get a better idea, do read the whole article, here I just give one small sample: "Cuba agreed in 2006 to stop its practice of harboring American fugitives."
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI wonder if that means people the US considers fugitives. As he is regarded by most of the world as an asylum seeker Cuba might decide they can let him in and they are still honouring that agreement.
- brown9-2 13y agoGreenwald was criticized for saying that the USG "should be on it's knees begging every day", a clearly inflammatory thing to say. To act like the criticism is the result of some grand government conspiracy is a bit much. There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil. On another note, the idea of a dead mans switch that harms the government of Country A is probably an attractive target for other governments that want to harm Country A.
- gnosis 13y ago"There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of ... a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil." Of course such determinations should be left to the professionals, our Supreme Leader, the oh-so-popular Congress and the stalwart defenders of liberty and justice: the Courts -- which are all so trustworthy, moral, and competent.. and who would never hide anything under the pretense of "national security" to cover their own asses, to grab more wealth and power, or keep the public from knowing of atrocities and crimes they, their buddies or their lackeys have commited.
- tptacek 13y agoDid Greenwald just say that Snowden has documents that could cause grievous harm the United States, and that he may have set up a dead man's switch that would cause them to be published should any harm come to Snowden? Three possibilities I can see: (1) Greenwald really can't think even one move ahead and see that he's just published a reason for any number of US adversaries to kill his source. (2) Greenwald understands the implications of what he's published but is, owing to his own incentives, fine with the idea of his source being killed (3) Greenwald doesn't believe what he's saying and isn't meant to be taken seriously. Cards on the table: that guy could be reporting that water is wet and I'd still have him in bucket (3). Although now you kind of hope the freakshow government in North Korea is smart enough to bucket him the same way.
- zwtaylor 13y agoI too immediately thought this statement was a misstep in Greenwald's otherwise discriminating journalism. The possibilities you outlined detail exactly why, but I would add a fourth, if somewhat far-fetched, circumstance to your list. (4) Snowden has verified knowledge of an imminent death threat from the USG and is using Greenwald to convey awareness of his "dead man's switch" for his own protection. Employing Greenwald as a channel for this message, as opposed to himself, gives him some cover legally and won't further alienate Snowden from the public who might see him as blackmailing the United States if he were to outright state this in say, a new video interview.
- jmackinn 13y agoSnowden made it very clear weeks ago that there was a dead man switch for the release of documents. Greenwald was just restating it with some sensationalism. Just trying to get more people to read the article.
- tptacek 13y agoIsn't Greenwald now relying on all of the governments of Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Russia, and who knows who else to also understand that he's just being a sensationalist?
- 13y ago